In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
binder: cache secctx size before release zeroes it
binder_transaction() bounds the scatter-gather buffer area with
sg_buf_end_offset and subtracts the aligned LSM context size because
the secctx is written at the tail of that area. The subtraction reads
lsmctx.len, but that field has already been cleared by the time the
line runs:
security_secid_to_secctx(secid, &lsmctx) /* lsmctx.len set */
lsmctx_aligned_size = ALIGN(lsmctx.len, sizeof(u64))
extra_buffers_size += lsmctx_aligned_size
...
security_release_secctx(&lsmctx) /* memset zeroes len */
...
sg_buf_end_offset = sg_buf_offset + extra_buffers_size
- ALIGN(lsmctx.len, sizeof(u64)) /* ALIGN(0,8) */
security_release_secctx() does memset(cp, 0, sizeof(*cp)), so lsmctx.len
reads back as 0 and the subtraction contributes nothing, leaving
sg_buf_end_offset too large by the aligned secctx size on every
transaction to a txn_security_ctx node.
Each BINDER_TYPE_PTR object then derives buf_left = sg_buf_end_offset -
sg_buf_offset as the sole upper bound on its copy, so the inflated end
offset lets the copy run into the bytes that already hold the secctx.
The aligned size must therefore be cached before release rather than
re-read from the now-cleared field. Fix by caching it in
lsmctx_aligned_size at function scope when it is first computed and
subtracting lsmctx_aligned_size instead of re-reading lsmctx.len after
release. Reuse the same value for the earlier buf_offset computation.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it